He's made clear his second term goal is to eliminate the GOP or at least conservatism from any political influence. He may or may not be successful on that.

If he is though, there are 60 million voters who will be disenfranchised and millions more who didn't vote, most of whom are conservative. That is a huge demographic which would be a great target market for an alternative set of cultural institutions. A separate media, private school system, entertainment industry, social clubs. There is a mass money market to tap constructing an parallel culture for the new dispossed minority. In the past gays had a parallel culture when they were dispossed from the mainstream.

The problem with this "market" of yours is that it is old and getting older every day. Why would the Democrats waste any effort eliminating something that nature is already effectively eliminating? Paranoia is a symptom of old age.

Besides, even if this basic fact wasn't true, seems to me that the GOP leadership is doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot.

Renard's problem is once again a lack of scope of the historical need of the scribe class (Hoffer) to order society to their own liking.

What has been systemically eroded is the culture of excellence, of exceptionalism and the ideal of the individual struggling to better himself and it has been supplanted with an ancient, but highly idealized and romanticized pastoral, even tribal devotion to the group based upon the philosophy of self-sacrifice, diminishing the importance of the true and smallest minority, the individual and accentuating the importance of one's identified group, which is why the poster above ascribes the change to the passing of a group, which it is not, but the passing of a philosophy. This is the same change that occurred in Germany from the 1880s on and will lead to a strong man as Government of the ideal can never deliver anything but misery and poverty so the impoverished get desperate and begin developing cult-like worship of the individual who can make slavery sound the most appealing to them.

The problem for the ardent champions of this change is that collectively, they want to see heaven here on earth, but individually each of them have a differing view of Eden and think that it will stop evolving at precisely the point that they are most comfortable with.

Obama, you see, is our nemesis. He is a totem, the logical manifestation of a warped media, the reification of some crazy — and arrogant — ideas about redistributive politics, the statist economy, and cultural and social life that permeated American life the last forty years. He is the president with a 1,000 faces that we have all seen at work, on TV, throughout American life, and at some point the odds determined that we had to have a rendezvous with him— perhaps a catharsis to teach us the wages of Keynesian debt, of a social policy contrary to human nature with its equality of result doctrines, of an all-powerful, all-growing unaccountable government, of the now hip ambiguity about past American protocols and history. Obama is the exaggeration of all the dubious ideas that arose since the 1960s — brought to fruition on his watch, delivered by mellifluous cadences by an untouchable persona.

In fact, a Barack Obama was long overdue. Had he not appeared out of nowhere in 2008, we would have surely had to invent him.
Victor Davis Hanson

However, the 74 years of the morbid Soviet experiment failed to breed the New Collectivist Man. The communist "engineers of human souls" isolated millions of people from the rest of humanity by sealing off the nation's borders and creating a pressurized Marxist bubble. They rearranged the society, rewrote history, and reorganized the culture. They subjected several generations of children to intense mind programming. They blocked all undesirable news sources, books, films, and music. They rewarded "correct" thoughts and impulses, and punished the "incorrect" ones. They demonized greed, selfishness, individualism, and self-interest. They taught altruism, collectivism, and self-sacrifice. They ran relentless campaigns that dehumanized non-compliant individuals.

Ultimately, not a single trait of human nature had changed. In the months before the collapse, the indisputable failure of collective farming forced the Soviet communists to resurrect the idea of individual farms -- and, in order to survive, Chinese communists reverted to private entrepreneurship, while maintaining the pretense of Marxist orthodoxy.

This alone should be enough to discredit the fundamental Marxist doctrine that the human mind is a "social construct" shaped entirely by manipulation and social conditioning. As an unintended consequence, the Soviet experiment proved the existence of something that Marxist science has always denied: that our individual thoughts, motives, and actions are governed, on the most part, by absolute moral standards, which are objectively derived from the unchangeable nature of human beings and the nature of the world.

Obviously, it is more beneficial to accept human nature in its entirety as an absolute standard and to build the society on that foundation, rather than to erect an artificial construct first and rearrange the foundation later, trying to discard parts that don't fit into the design.

And yet that failed philosophy is now flourishing in America's academia and leftist think tanks, which currently formulate U.S. government policies.